Karagdag v. Barado
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Doroteo Karagdag commenced an action to recover possession of a parcel of land from defendants Filomena Barado et al. Plaintiff alleged he purchased the land from Enrica Soriano on June 24, 1913, who acquired it from the State and registered her title on April 28, 1897. Procedural History: The defendant, Filomena Barado, denied the allegations. During trial, evidence was presented showing that in December 1901, Barado initiated an action against Soriano for possession of the land, which was decided against her and affirmed on appeal. However, this prior action was to prevent Soriano from molesting Barado's possession, indicating Barado was in possession as early as December 28, 1901. Barado also presented evidence, admitted without objection, that she had been in quiet and peaceable enjoyment of the land since 1873, inheriting it from her grandfather who possessed it for forty years prior. In April 1897, Barado acquired an informacion posesoria title, duly registered. The lower court found that Barado had been in actual, adverse possession for ten years, vesting title in her under Section 41 of Act No. 190. The Petition: Plaintiff appealed, arguing the lower court erred in not declaring him the owner and in allowing the defendant to benefit from lapse of time without pleading "prescription."
Issue(s)
Whether the defendant, having failed to plead "prescription," can still avail of the defense of ten years of actual adverse possession to defeat the plaintiff's claim. Whether the plaintiff, under the presented evidence, is the rightful owner of the land in question.
Ruling
The judgment of the lower court is affirmed. The defendant is vested with the title to the land by virtue of ten years of actual adverse possession.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of pleading "prescription": The Court reiterated its consistent holding that "prescription," as a defense, must be expressly alleged. However, an exception exists where the defense is based on absolute ownership acquired through ten years of actual adverse possession, uninterruptedly continued for ten years, by occupancy, descent, grants, or otherwise. In such cases, it is not necessary to plead "prescription," particularly when evidence of such possession is admitted without objection. The Court noted that defects in pleadings are often cured by evidence admitted without objection, justifying a decision based on the preponderance of proof. The defendant's proof of quiet and peaceable enjoyment since 1873, inheritance, and acquisition of an informacion posesoria title in 1897, coupled with her adverse possession since at least December 28, 1901, established her claim. The plaintiff's own proof also showed the defendant's possession claiming ownership since December 28, 1901. The Court found that the evidence clearly showed neither the plaintiff nor Enrica Soriano had ever been in possession of the land. On the issue of ownership: The Court found, by a large preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant had been in the actual, adverse, notorious, uninterrupted, and continuous possession of the property for a period exceeding ten years, claiming to be the absolute owner thereof. This possession, originating from inheritance and further evidenced by her registered informacion posesoria title and subsequent adverse occupancy, vested in her a full and complete title to the land by operation of law, specifically Section 41 of Act No. 190. The Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish his claim of ownership, while the defendant's title by adverse possession was sufficiently proven.
Main Doctrine
Where the defense in an action to recover possession of land is based on absolute ownership vested by ten years of actual adverse possession, it is not necessary to plead "prescription," especially if evidence of such possession was admitted without objection.